securities and exchange commission exchange act of 1934 ... · 3/31/2005 · securities and...

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 __________

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005

OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from_______________ to _______________

Commission file number 1-10435

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware 06-0633559 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. employer incorporation or organization) identification no.)

Lacey Place, Southport, Connecticut 06890 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

(203) 259-7843

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by

section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No _____

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes X No _____

The number of shares outstanding of the issuer's common stock as of April 30, 2005: Common Stock, $1 par value - 26,910,720.

of 29

2

INDEX

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 1. Financial Statements (Unaudited)

Condensed balance sheets--March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 3 Condensed statements of income--Three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 5 Condensed statements of cash flows--Three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 6 Notes to condensed financial statements--March 31, 2005 7

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 14 Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 20 Item 4. Controls and Procedures 20 PART II. OTHER INFORMATION Item 1. Legal Proceedings 21 Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds 21 Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities 21 Item 4. Submission of Matters to a vote of Security Holders 21 Item 5. Other Information 21 Item 6. Exhibits 22 SIGNATURES 23

3

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

March 31, December 31, 2005 2004 (Unaudited) (Note) Assets Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,841 $ 4,841 Short-term investments 30,890 28,430 Trade receivables, less allowances for doubtful accounts ($373 and $373) and discounts ($345 and $555) 18,988 16,082 Inventories: Finished products 11,295 13,289 Materials and products in process 37,428 36,230 48,723 49,519

Deferred income taxes 6,813 6,445 Prepaid expenses and other current assets 2,815 4,383 Total current assets 112,070 109,700 Property, plant and equipment 160,298 160,434 Less allowances for depreciation (133,574) (132,860) 26,724 27,574 Deferred income taxes 1,165 1,178Other assets 8,626 8,489Total Assets $148,585 $146,941

4

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

March 31, December 31, 2005 2004 (Unaudited) (Note) Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity Current Liabilities Trade accounts payable and accrued expenses $ 4,013 $ 5,281 Product liability 1,902 1,968 Employee compensation 6,200 5,868 Workers’ compensation 5,451 5,387 Income taxes 2,349 768 Total current liabilities 19,915 19,272 Accrued pension liability 6,379 6,337Product liability accrual 1,133 1,164Contingent liabilities --Note 8 -- -- Stockholders’ Equity Common Stock, non-voting, par value $1: Authorized shares 50,000; none issued -- -- Common Stock, par value $1: Authorized shares - 40,000,000

Issued and outstanding - 26,910,700 26,911 26,911 Additional paid-in capital 2,508 2,508 Retained earnings 102,014 101,024 Accumulated other comprehensive income(loss) (10,275) (10,275)Total Stockholders’ Equity 121,158 120,168Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity $148,585 $146,941

Note: The balance sheet at December 31, 2004 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that

date but does not include all the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements.

See notes to condensed financial statements.

5

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (UNAUDITED) (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Three Months Ended March 31, 2005 2004 Net firearms sales $39,100 $36,138Net castings sales 5,160 4,099 Total net sales 44,260 40,237 Cost of products sold 32,412 28,026Gross profit 11,848 12,211 Expenses: Selling 4,061 4,150 General and administrative 1,628 1,676 5,689 5,826Operating profit 6,159 6,385 Other income (loss)-net (14) 90 Income before income taxes 6,145 6,475 Income taxes 2,464 2,596 Net income $ 3,681 $ 3,879 Earnings per share Basic $0.14 $0.14 Diluted $0.14 $0.14 Cash dividends per share $0.10 $0.20 Average shares outstanding Basic 26,911 26,911 Diluted 26,911 27,008


6

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED) (Dollars in thousands) Three Months Ended March 31,

2005 2004 Cash Provided by Operating Activities $ 4,700 $ 4,012 Investing Activities Property, plant and equipment additions (550) (1,150) Purchases of short-term investments (35,801) (32,460) Proceeds from maturities of short-term investments 33,342 34,395 Cash provided (used) by investing activities (3,009) 785 Financing Activities Dividends paid (2,691) (5,382) Cash used by financing activities (2,691) (5,382) Decrease in cash and cash equivalents (1,000) (585) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 4,841 3,446 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 3,841 $ 2,861


7

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) March 31, 2005 NOTE 1 - BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation of the results of the interim periods. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year ending December 31, 2005. These financial statements have been prepared on a basis that is substantially consistent with the accounting principles applied in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. NOTE 2 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Organization: Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (the "Company") is principally engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of firearms and investment castings. The Company's design and manufacturing operations are located in the United States. Substantially all sales are domestic. The Company's firearms are sold through a select number of independent wholesale distributors to the sporting and law enforcement markets. Investment castings are sold either directly to or through manufacturers’ representatives to companies in a wide variety of industries. Use of Estimates: The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Principles of Consolidation: The condensed financial statements have been prepared from the Company’s books and records and include all of the Company’s accounts. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. Certain prior year balances may have been reclassified to conform with current year presentation.

Stock Incentive and Bonus Plans: The Company accounts for employee stock options under Accounting

Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.” The Company has adopted the disclosure-only provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure.” Had compensation expense for the Plans been determined in accordance with SFAS No. 123 (using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model), the Company’s net income and earnings per share would have been reduced to the following pro forma amounts (in thousands, except per share data):

8

NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - CONTINUED

Three Months Ended March 31, 2005 2004 Net Income: As reported $3,681 $ 3,879 Add: Recognized stock-based employee

compensation, net of tax

--

-- Deduct: Employee compensation expense determined

under fair value method, net of tax

(5)

(12) Pro forma $3,676 $ 3,867 Basic Earnings per Share: As reported $0.14 $0.14 Pro forma $0.14 $0.14 Diluted Earnings per Share: As reported $0.14 $0.14 Pro forma $0.14 $0.14

The fair value of stock-based compensation expense was computed using the Black-Scholes option-

pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions in 2001: dividend yield of 8.0%, expected volatility of 34.3%, risk free rate of return of 2.0%, and expected lives of 5 years. The estimated fair value of options granted is subject to the assumptions made and if the assumptions changed, the estimated fair value amounts could be significantly different. There have been no stock options granted since 2001.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements: In November 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board

(“FASB”) issued SFAS 151, “Inventory Costs -- an amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4” which clarifies the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted material. SFAS 151 requires that these costs be recognized as current period charges regardless of whether they are abnormal. In addition, SFAS 151 requires that allocation of fixed production overheads to the costs of manufacturing be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. SFAS 151 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company has not completed its evaluation of the impact that the adoption of this statement will have on its financial position or results of operations.

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment”, which requires that the

cost resulting from all share-based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statements. This Statement requires a public entity to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award. That cost will be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. SFAS 123R is effective for interim or annual reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company does not expect the adoption of this statement to have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. NOTE 3 - INVENTORIES Inventories are valued using the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method. An actual valuation of inventory under the LIFO method can be made only at the end of each year based on the inventory levels and costs existing at that time. Accordingly, interim LIFO calculations must necessarily be based on management's estimates of expected year-end inventory levels and costs. Because these are subject to many forces beyond management's control, interim results are subject to the final year-end LIFO inventory valuation.

9

NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - CONTINUED NOTE 4 - INCOME TAXES The Company’s 2005 effective tax rate differs from the statutory tax rate due to state income taxes and the newly enacted tax deduction for qualified production activities provided under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. This deduction is available to the Company for the first time in 2005. The Company's 2004 effective tax rate differs from the statutory tax rate principally as a result of state income taxes. Total income tax payments during the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 were $0.1 million and $0.8 million, respectively. NOTE 5 - PENSION PLANS

The Company sponsors two defined benefit pension plans which cover substantially all employees. A third defined benefit plan is non-qualified and covers certain executive officers of the Company. The estimated cost of these plans is summarized below: Three Months Ended March 31, 2005 2004 Service cost $346 $ 376 Interest cost 706 753 Expected return on plan assets (829) (805) Amortization of prior service cost 71 145 Recognized actuarial gains 195 191 Net periodic pension cost $489 $ 660

NOTE 6 - BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE Basic earnings per share is based upon the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share reflect the impact of options outstanding using the treasury stock method, when applicable. This resulted in diluted weighted-average shares outstanding for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 of 26,911,000 and 27,008,000, respectively. NOTE 7 - COMPREHENSIVE INCOME As there were no non-owner changes in equity during the first three months of 2005 and 2004, total comprehensive income equals net income for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 of $3.7 million and $3.9 million, respectively.

NOTE 8 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

As of March 31, 2005, the Company is a defendant in approximately six lawsuits involving its products and is aware of certain other such claims. These lawsuits and claims fall into two categories:

10


(i) those that claim damages from the Company related to allegedly defective product design

which stem from a specific incident. These lawsuits and claims are based principally on the theory of “strict liability” but also may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, and other legal theories, and

(ii) those brought by cities, municipalities, counties, and individuals against firearms

manufacturers, distributors and dealers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties in the commission of homicides, suicides and other shootings involving juveniles and adults. The complaints by municipalities seek damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and the maintenance of courts, prisons, and other services. In certain instances, the plaintiffs seek to recover for decreases in property values and loss of business within the city due to criminal violence. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. These suits allege, among other claims, strict liability or negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent entrustment, negligent distribution, deceptive or fraudulent advertising, violation of consumer protection statutes and conspiracy or concert of action theories. Most of these cases do not allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company’s products.

Management believes that, in every case, the allegations are unfounded, and that the shootings and any

results therefrom were due to negligence or misuse of the firearms by third-parties or the claimant, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Defenses further exist to the suits brought by cities, municipalities, and counties based, among other reasons, on established state law precluding recovery by municipalities for essential government services, the remoteness of the claims, the types of damages sought to be recovered, and limitations on the extraterritorial authority which may be exerted by a city, municipality, county or state under state and federal law, including State and Federal Constitutions.

The only case against the Company alleging liability for criminal shootings by third-parties to ever be

permitted to go before a constitutional jury, Hamilton, et al. v. Accu-tek, et al., resulted in a defense verdict in favor of the Company on February 11, 1999. In that case, numerous firearms manufacturers and distributors had been sued, alleging damages as a result of alleged negligent sales practices and “industry-wide” liability. The Company and its marketing and distribution practices were exonerated from any claims of negligence in each of the seven cases decided by the jury. In subsequent proceedings involving other defendants, the New York Court of Appeals as a matter of law confirmed that 1) no legal duty existed under the circumstances to prevent or investigate criminal misuses of a manufacturer’s lawfully made products; and 2) liability of firearms manufacturers could not be apportioned under a market share theory. More recently, the New York Court of Appeals on October 21, 2003 declined to hear the appeal from the decision of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirming the dismissal of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s public nuisance suit against the Company and other manufacturers and distributors of firearms. In its decision, the Appellate Division relied heavily on Hamilton in concluding that it was “legally inappropriate,” “impractical,” “unrealistic” and “unfair” to attempt to hold firearms manufacturers responsible under theories of public nuisance for the criminal acts of others.

Of the lawsuits brought by municipalities or a state Attorney General, twenty have been concluded:

Atlanta – dismissal by intermediate Appellate Court, no further appeal; Bridgeport – dismissal affirmed by Connecticut Supreme Court; County of Camden – dismissal affirmed by U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals;

11


Miami – dismissal affirmed by intermediate appellate court, Florida Supreme Court declined review; New Orleans – dismissed by Louisiana Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court declined review; Philadelphia – U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, no further appeal; Wilmington – dismissed by trial court, no appeal; Boston – voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the City at the close of fact discovery; Cincinnati – voluntarily withdrawn after a unanimous vote of the city council; Detroit – dismissed by Michigan Court of Appeals, no appeal; Wayne County – dismissed by Michigan Court of Appeals, no appeal; New York State – Court of Appeals denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal the Intermediate Appellate Court’s dismissal, no further appeal; Newark – Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division for Essex County dismissed the case with prejudice; City of Camden – dismissed on July 7, 2003, not reopened; Jersey City – voluntarily dismissed and not re-filed; St. Louis – Missouri Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to appeal Missouri Appellate Court’s affirmance of dismissal; Chicago – Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing; and Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, and San Francisco – Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants, no further appeal.

The dismissal of the Washington, D.C. lawsuit was sustained on appeal, but individual plaintiffs were

permitted to proceed to discovery and attempt to identify the manufacturers of the firearms used in their shootings as “machine guns” under the city’s “strict liability” law. On October 19, 2004, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the court’s judgment, which dismissed the city’s claim against firearms manufacturers but let stand certain individuals’ claims against the manufacturers of firearms allegedly used in criminal assaults against plaintiffs under the Washington, D.C. “Strict Liability Act,” subject to proof of causation. On April 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals, in an en banc rehearing, dismissed all common law negligence and “public nuisance” claims against all defendants, but again permitted plaintiffs to proceed to discovery to determine whether any of defendants’ products could be identified under the D.C. “Strict Liability Act.” It is uncertain if any further appeal will be pursued by any party to this lawsuit.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Gary case by the trial court, but the Indiana

Supreme Court reversed this dismissal and remanded the case for discovery proceedings on December 23, 2003. Cleveland and New York City are open cases and the New York City case is presently scheduled to begin trial in September, 2005.

In the NAACP case, on May 14, 2003, an advisory jury returned a verdict rejecting the NAACP’s claims.

On July 21, 2003, Judge Jack B. Weinstein entered an order dismissing the NAACP lawsuit, but this order contained lengthy dicta which defendants believe are contrary to law and fact. Appeals by both sides were filed, but plaintiffs withdrew their appeal. On August 3, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the NAACP’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal of Judge Weinstein’s order denying defendants’ motion to strike his dicta made in his order dismissing the NAACP’s case, and the defendants’ motion for summary disposition was denied as moot. The ruling of the Second Circuit effectively confirmed the decision in favor of defendants and brought this matter to a conclusion.

Legislation has been passed in approximately 34 states precluding suits of the type brought by the

municipalities mentioned above, and similar federal legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress. It passed the House by a 2-to-1 bipartisan majority and had over 54 co-sponsors in the Senate. It was considered by the Senate in February 2004, but failed to gain final passage after it was encumbered with numerous non-germane amendments. It was reintroduced in early 2005, and Senate hearings were held in March 2005. It is uncertain when it will be voted upon by either the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full Senate.

12


Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in many of the lawsuits and claims.

Aggregate claimed amounts presently exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For claims made after July 10, 1997, coverage is provided for annual losses exceeding $2.0 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $5.5 million annually. For claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided for annual losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000, which are excluded from coverage.

Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the

alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because our experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in our product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims-handling expenses on an ongoing basis.

A range of reasonably possible loss relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. However, in the

product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed, the amount of damages claimed, which totaled $13.6 million at March 31, 2005, is set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability that the Company might be required to incur in these cases (regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.

Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company

reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A time schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case.

The Company’s management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which

includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular period.

The Company has reported all cases instituted against it through December 31, 2004 and the results of

those cases, where terminated, to the S.E.C. on its previous Form 10-K and 10-Q reports, to which reference is hereby made.

NOTE 9 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

For the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, the Company paid Newport Mills, of which William B. Ruger, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, is the sole proprietor, $60,750 for storage rental and office space.

13


NOTE 10 - OPERATING SEGMENT INFORMATION The Company has two reportable segments: firearms and investment castings. The firearms segment manufactures and sells rifles, pistols, revolvers, and shotguns principally to a select number of independent wholesale distributors primarily located in the United States. The investment castings segment consists of two operating divisions which manufacture and sell titanium and steel investment castings. Selected operating segment financial information follows (in thousands):

Three months ended March 31, 2005 2004 Net Sales Firearms $39,100 $36,138 Castings Unaffiliated 5,160 4,099 Intersegment 5,664 4,062 10,824 8,161 Eliminations (5,664) (4,062) $44,260 $40,237 Income(loss) before income taxes Firearms $6,379 $ 6,913 Castings (333) (504) Corporate 99 66 6,145 $6,475 March 31,

2005December 31,

2004 Identifiable Assets Firearms $79,193 $ 77,049 Castings 20,371 19,581 Corporate 49,021 50,311 $148,585 $146,941

14

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS Company Overview Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (the “Company”) is principally engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of firearms and precision investment castings. The Company’s design and manufacturing operations are located in the United States. Substantially all sales are domestic.

The Company is the only U.S. firearms manufacturer which offers products in all four industry product categories – rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers. The Company’s firearms are sold through a select number of independent wholesale distributors principally to the commercial sporting market. Investment castings manufactured are of titanium and steel alloys. Investment castings are sold either directly to or through manufacturers’ representatives to companies in a wide variety of industries. Because many of the Company’s competitors are not subject to public filing requirements and industry-wide data is generally not available in a timely manner, the Company is unable to compare its performance to other companies or specific current industry trends. Instead, the Company measures itself against its own historical results. The Company does not consider its overall firearms business to be predictably seasonal; however, sales of certain models of firearms are usually lower in the third quarter of the year.

Results of Operations The Company achieved consolidated net sales of $44.3 million for the first quarter of 2005. This represents an increase of $4.1 million or 10.0% from the first quarter of 2004 consolidated net sales of $40.2 million.

Firearms segment net sales of $39.1 million in the first quarter of 2005 were $3.0 million, or 8.2% greater than the first quarter of 2004. Firearms unit shipments increased 2% for the three month period ended March 31, 2005, from the comparable 2004 period as demand for pistols improved. A modest price increase and a change in mix from lower priced products to higher priced products resulted in the larger increase in sales versus unit shipments. In 2005, the Company continued a sales incentive program begun in 2004 for its distributors which allows them to earn rebates of up to 1.5% if certain annual overall sales targets are achieved. This program replaced a similar sales incentive program in 2004.

Casting segment net sales increased by $1.1 million or 25.9% to $5.2 million in the three months ended March 31, 2005 from $4.1 million in the first quarter of 2004. Increased sales were primarily generated from existing customers in a variety of industries. Consolidated cost of products sold for the first quarter of 2005 was $32.4 million compared to $28.0 million in the first quarter of 2004. The increase is attributable to increased firearms and castings sales, increased unitary overhead expenses resulting from a reduction in firearms production volume and increased product liability costs.

15

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS - CONTINUED For the quarter ended March 31, 2005, gross profit as a percent of net sales decreased to 26.8% from 30.3% in the comparable quarter of 2004. Margin deterioration was caused by less efficient firearms production due to lower rates of production, discounts offered on certain discontinued firearm models, and increased product liability expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses decreased $0.1 million to $5.7 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 compared with the prior year period.

Total other income decreased by $0.1 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2005 compared to the

corresponding 2004 period as increased interest income was offset by non-manufacturing costs related to a New Hampshire facility acquired in 2003.

The effective income tax rate was 40.1% in the quarters ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

As a result of the foregoing factors, consolidated net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 decreased to $3.7 million from $3.9 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. Financial Condition Operations At March 31, 2005, the Company had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $34.7 million, working capital of $92.2 million and a current ratio of 5.6 to 1. Cash provided by operating activities was $4.7 million for quarter ended March 31, 2005, an increase of $0.7 million compared with the corresponding period of 2004. The increase in cash provided by operations is attributable to fluctuations in various operating accounts. Until November 30, 2004, the Company followed a common industry practice of offering a “dating plan” to its firearms customers on selected products, which allowed the customer to buy the products commencing in December, the start of the Company’s marketing year, and pay for them on extended terms. Discounts were offered for early payment. The dating plan provided a revolving payment plan under which payments for all shipments made during the period December through February were made by April 30. Shipments made in subsequent months were paid for within a maximum of 120 days. On December 1, 2004, the Company modified the payment terms on these selected products whereby payment is now due 45 days after shipment. Discounts are offered for early payment. Dating plan receivable balances were $5.4 million at March 31, 2005 compared to $6.9 million at March 31, 2004. The Company purchases its various raw materials from a number of suppliers. There is, however, a limited supply of these materials in the marketplace at any given time which can cause the purchase prices to vary based upon numerous market factors. The Company believes that it has adequate quantities of raw materials in inventory to provide ample time to locate and obtain additional items at a reasonable cost without interruption of its manufacturing operations. However, if market conditions result in a significant prolonged inflation of certain prices, the Company’s results could be materially adversely affected.

16

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS – CONTINUED

In conjunction with the sale of its Uni-Cast division in June 2000, the Company extended credit to the purchaser in the form of a note and a line of credit, both of which are collateralized by certain of the assets of Uni-Cast. In July 2002, the Company established an additional collateralized line of credit for the purchaser and, as of March 31, 2005, the total amount due from the purchaser was $1.3 million, which was paid in April 2005. The Company purchases aluminum castings used in the manufacture of certain models of pistols exclusively from Uni-Cast.

Investing and Financing Capital expenditures during the quarter ended March 31, 2005 totaled $0.6 million. For the past two years capital expenditures averaged approximately $1.1 million per quarter. In 2005, the Company expects to spend approximately $8 million on capital expenditures to upgrade and modernize manufacturing equipment primarily at the Newport Firearms Division. The Company finances, and intends to continue to finance, all of these activities with funds provided by operations and available cash and short-term investments. For the quarter ended March 31, 2005 dividends paid totaled $2.7 million. This amount reflects a quarterly dividend of $.10 per share paid in March 2005. On May 3, 2005, the Company declared a quarterly dividend of $.10 per share payable on June 15, 2005. Future dividends depend on many factors, including internal estimates of future performance, then-current cash and short-term investments, and the Company’s need for funds.

Historically, the Company has not required external financing. Based on its cash flow and unencumbered assets, the Company believes it has the ability to raise substantial amounts of short-term or long-term debt. The Company does not anticipate any need for significant external financing through 2005.

Firearms Legislation

The sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms are subject to thousands of federal, state and local

governmental regulations. The basic federal laws are the National Firearms Act, the Federal Firearms Act, and the Gun Control Act of 1968. These laws generally prohibit the private ownership of fully automatic weapons and place certain restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms unless certain licenses are obtained. The Company does not manufacture fully automatic weapons, other than for the law enforcement market, and holds all necessary licenses under these federal laws. From time to time, congressional committees review proposed bills relating to the regulation of firearms. These proposed bills generally seek either to restrict or ban the sale and, in some cases, the ownership of various types of firearms. Several states currently have laws in effect similar to the aforementioned legislation.

Until November 30, 1998, the “Brady Law” mandated a nationwide five-day waiting period and

background check prior to the purchase of a handgun. As of November 30, 1998, the National Instant Check System, which applies to both handguns and long guns, replaced the five-day waiting period. The Company believes that the “Brady Law” has not had a significant effect on the Company’s sales of firearms, nor does it anticipate any impact on sales in the future. The “Crime Bill” took effect on September 13, 1994, but none of the Company’s products were banned as so-called “assault weapons.” To the contrary, all the Company’s then- manufactured commercially-sold long guns were exempted by name as “legitimate sporting firearms.” This

17


ban expired by operation of law on September 13, 2004. The Company remains strongly opposed to laws which would restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to lawfully acquire firearms. The Company believes that the lawful private ownership of firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the widespread private ownership of firearms in the United States will continue. However, there can be no assurance that the regulation of firearms will not become more restrictive in the future and that any such restriction would not have a material adverse effect on the business of the Company.

Firearms Litigation

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits involving its products and is aware of certain other

such claims. The Company has expended significant amounts of financial resources and management time in connection with product liability litigation. Management believes that, in every case, the allegations are unfounded, and that the shootings and any results therefrom were due to negligence or misuse of the firearms by third-parties or the claimant, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Defenses further exist to the suits brought by cities, municipalities, counties, and a state attorney general based, among other reasons, on established state law precluding recovery by municipalities for essential government services, the remoteness of the claims, the types of damages sought to be recovered, and limitations on the extraterritorial authority which may be exerted by a city, municipality, county or state under state and federal law, including State and Federal Constitutions.

The only case against the Company alleging liability for criminal shootings by third-parties to ever be

permitted to go before a constitutional jury, Hamilton, et al. v. Accu-tek, et al., resulted in a defense verdict in favor of the Company on February 11, 1999. In that case, numerous firearms manufacturers and distributors had been sued, alleging damages as a result of alleged negligent sales practices and “industry-wide” liability. The Company and its marketing and distribution practices were exonerated from any claims of negligence in each of the seven cases decided by the jury. In subsequent proceedings involving other defendants, the New York Court of Appeals as a matter of law confirmed that 1) no legal duty existed under the circumstances to prevent or investigate criminal misuses of a manufacturer’s lawfully made products; and 2) liability of firearms manufacturers could not be apportioned under a market share theory. More recently, the New York Court of Appeals on October 21, 2003 declined to hear the appeal from the decision of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirming the dismissal of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s public nuisance suit against the Company and other manufacturers and distributors of firearms. In its decision, the Appellate Division relied heavily on Hamilton in concluding that it was “legally inappropriate,” “impractical,” “unrealistic” and “unfair” to attempt to hold firearms manufacturers responsible under theories of public nuisance for the criminal acts of others.

Of the lawsuits brought by municipalities or a state Attorney General, twenty have been concluded:

Atlanta – dismissal by intermediate Appellate Court, no further appeal; Bridgeport – dismissal affirmed by Connecticut Supreme Court; County of Camden – dismissal affirmed by U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Miami – dismissal affirmed by intermediate appellate court, Florida Supreme Court declined review; New Orleans – dismissed by Louisiana Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court declined review; Philadelphia – U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, no further appeal; Wilmington – dismissed by trial court, no appeal; Boston – voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the City at the close of fact discovery; Cincinnati – voluntarily withdrawn after a unanimous vote of the city council; Detroit – dismissed by Michigan Court of Appeals, no appeal; Wayne County – dismissed by Michigan Court of Appeals, no appeal; New York State – Court of Appeals denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal the Intermediate Appellate Court’s

18

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS – CONTINUED dismissal, no further appeal; Newark – Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division for Essex County dismissed the case with prejudice; City of Camden – dismissed on July 7, 2003, not reopened; Jersey City – voluntarily dismissed and not re-filed; St. Louis – Missouri Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to appeal Missouri Appellate Court’s affirmance of dismissal; Chicago – Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing; and Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, and San Francisco – Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants, no further appeal.

The dismissal of the Washington, D.C. lawsuit was sustained on appeal, but individual plaintiffs were

permitted to proceed to discovery and attempt to identify the manufacturers of the firearms used in their shootings as “machine guns” under the city’s “strict liability” law. On October 19, 2004, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the court’s judgment, which dismissed the city’s claim against firearms manufacturers but let stand certain individuals’ claims against the manufacturers of firearms allegedly used in criminal assaults against plaintiffs under the Washington, D.C. “Strict Liability Act,” subject to proof of causation. On April 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals, in an en banc rehearing, dismissed all common law negligence and “public nuisance” claims against all defendants, but again permitted plaintiffs to proceed to discovery to determine whether any of defendants’ products could be identified under the D.C. “Strict Liability Act.” It is uncertain if any further appeal will be pursued by any party to this lawsuit.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Gary case by the trial court, but the Indiana

Supreme Court reversed this dismissal and remanded the case for discovery proceedings on December 23, 2003. Cleveland and New York City are open cases and the New York City case is presently scheduled to begin trial in September, 2005.

In the NAACP case, on May 14, 2003, an advisory jury returned a verdict rejecting the NAACP’s claims.

On July 21, 2003, Judge Jack B. Weinstein entered an order dismissing the NAACP lawsuit, but this order contained lengthy dicta which defendants believe are contrary to law and fact. Appeals by both sides were filed, but plaintiffs withdrew their appeal. On August 3, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the NAACP’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal of Judge Weinstein’s order denying defendants’ motion to strike his dicta made in his order dismissing the NAACP’s case, and the defendants’ motion for summary disposition was denied as moot. The ruling of the Second Circuit effectively confirmed the decision in favor of defendants and brought this matter to a conclusion.

Legislation has been passed in approximately 34 states precluding suits of the type brought by the

municipalities mentioned above, and similar federal legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress. It passed the House by a 2-to-1 bipartisan majority and had over 54 co-sponsors in the Senate. It was considered by the Senate in February 2004, but failed to gain final passage after it was encumbered with numerous non-germane amendments. It was reintroduced in early 2005, and Senate hearings were held in March 2005. It is uncertain when it will be voted upon by either the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full Senate.

Other Operational Matters

In the normal course of its manufacturing operations, the Company is subject to occasional

governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to waste disposal, air emissions and water discharges into the environment. The Company believes that it is generally in compliance with applicable environmental regulations and the outcome of such proceedings and orders will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company.

19


The valuation of the future defined benefit pension obligations at December 31, 2004 indicated that these plans were underfunded. While this estimation has no bearing on the actual funded status of the pension plans, it resulted in the recognition of a cumulative other comprehensive loss of $10.3 million at December 31, 2004.

The Company expects to realize its deferred tax assets through tax deductions against future taxable

income or carry back against taxes previously paid. Inflation’s effect on the Company’s operations is most immediately felt in cost of products sold because

the Company values inventory on the LIFO basis. Generally under this method, the cost of products sold reported in the financial statements approximates current costs, and thus, reduces distortion in reported income which would result from the slower recognition of increased costs when other methods are used. The use of historical cost depreciation has a beneficial effect on cost of products sold. The Company has been affected by inflation in line with the general economy. Adjustments to Critical Accounting Policies

The Company has not made any adjustments to its critical accounting estimates and assumptions

described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 12, 2005, or the judgment affecting the application of those estimates and assumptions.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In November 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS 151, “Inventory Costs -- an amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4” which clarifies the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted material. SFAS 151 requires that these costs be recognized as current period charges regardless of whether they are abnormal. In addition, SFAS 151 requires that allocation of fixed production overheads to the costs of manufacturing be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. SFAS 151 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company has not completed its evaluation of the impact that the adoption of this statement will have on its financial position or results of operations.

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment”, which requires that the

cost resulting from all share-based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statements. This Statement requires a public entity to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award. That cost will be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. SFAS 123R is effective for interim or annual reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company does not expect the adoption of this statement to have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Forward-Looking Statements and Projections The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings,

20

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS – CONTINUED the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company including lawsuits filed by mayors, state attorneys general and other governmental entities and membership organizations, and the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events. ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

The Company is exposed to changes in prevailing market interest rates affecting the return on its investments but does not consider this interest rate market risk exposure to be material to its financial condition or results of operations. The Company invests primarily in United States Treasury instruments with short-term (less than one year) maturities. The carrying amount of these investments approximates fair value due to the short-term maturities. Under its current policies, the Company does not use derivative financial instruments, derivative commodity instruments or other financial instruments to manage its exposure to changes in interest rates or commodity prices. ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES Evaluation

The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of the end of the period covered by this report.

Conclusions

Based on that evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer and Chief Financial

Officer have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

There have not been any changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term

is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the Company’s most recent quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

21

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The nature of the legal proceedings against the Company is discussed at Note 8 of the Notes to

Condensed Financial Statements under Item 1 of this Form 10-Q report, which is incorporated herein by reference.

The Company has reported all cases instituted against it through December 31, 2004, and the results of

those cases, where terminated, to the S.E.C. on its previous Form 10-K and 10-Q reports, to which reference is hereby made.

One case was formally instituted against the Company during the three months ended March 31, 2005,

which involved significant demands for compensatory and/or punitive damages and in which the Company has been served with process:

Leabo v. Company (AZ) in the United States District Court, District of Arizona. The complaint, which

was served on March 30, 2005, alleges that a Ruger “old model” single action revolver fell and discharged, resulting in injury to the plaintiff’s hand. Plaintiff seeks general and punitive damages.

During the three months ending March 31, 2005, no previously reported cases were settled. On January 24, 2005, in the previously reported City of Chicago case, the Illinois Supreme Court denied

plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing of the dismissal of all the city’s claims including “public nuisance” against the Company and other members of the firearms industry. No further appeal was filed.

On February 10, 2005, in the previously reported Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, and San

Francisco cases, the First Appellate District, District One, in the Court of Appeals of the State of California unanimously affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all claims, including that of “public nuisance,” against the Company and other members of the firearms industry. No further appeal was filed.

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS Not applicable

ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES Not applicable

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS None

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION

None

22

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS

(a) Exhibits:

31.1 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

31.2 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.1 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.2 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section

906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

23

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC.

FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2005

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. Date: May 3, 2005 S/THOMAS A. DINEEN Thomas A. Dineen

Principal Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION I, William B. Ruger, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Sturm, Ruger &

Company, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact

or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in

this Report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining

disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and

procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control

over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and

presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial

reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent

evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal

control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who

have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 3, 2005 S/WILLIAM B. RUGER, JR. William B. Ruger, Jr. Chief Executive Officer

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION I, Thomas A. Dineen, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Sturm, Ruger &

Company, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact

or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in

this Report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining

disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and

procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control

over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and

presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial

reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent

evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal

control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who

have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 3, 2005 S/THOMAS A. DINEEN__________ Thomas A. Dineen Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William B. Ruger, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respect, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 3, 2005 S/WILLIAM B. RUGER, JR. William B. Ruger, Jr. Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Dineen, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respect, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 3, 2005 S/THOMAS A. DINEEN__________ Thomas A. Dineen Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

securities and exchange commission exchange act of 1934 ... · 3/31/2005 · securities and...

Documents